To retrospectively compare long-term outcomes of first-line drug-eluting particle (DEB)- transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and lipiodol-TACE, in patients with unresectable hepatocellular (HCC).We retrospectively reviewed our database to identify adult patients with treatment-naïve unresectable HCC, who underwent TACE from 2006 to 2013. Patients were excluded in the absence of complete medical records relative to first TACE, 1-month follow-up, and/or sufficient follow-up data. Periprocedural complications, duration of hospitalization, 1-month tumor response by mRECIST, time to tumor progression (TTP) and target tumor progression (TTTP), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated.Out of an initial series of 656 patients, 329 patients were excluded for unavailability of sufficient baseline and/or follow-up data. The remaining 327 patients underwent either lipiodol-TACE (n = 160) or DEB-TACE (n = 167). Patients treated with lipiodol-TACE had a significantly higher tumor burden. By propensity score, patients were matched according to baseline differences (BCLC stage, uninodular or multinodular HCC, and unilobar or bilobar HCC), resulting in 101 patients in each treatment group. Lipiodol-TACE was associated with a significantly higher incidence of adverse events (p = 0.03), and longer hospitalization (mean, 2.5 days vs 1.9 days; p = 0.03), while tumor response, TTP, and OS were comparable. In patients achieving 1-month complete response (CR) of target tumor, TTTP was significantly (p = 0.009) longer after DEB-TACE compared to lipiodol-TACE (median, 835 vs 353 days), resulting in a lower number of re-treatments during the entire follow-up (0.75 vs 1.6, p = 0.01).Compared to lipiodol-TACE, DEB-TACE offers higher tolerability, reduced hospitalization, and more durable target tumor response after CR.• Compared to lipiodol-TACE, DEB-TACE is better tolerated and has reduced side effects, which translates into shorter hospitalization. • When complete radiological response according to the mRECIST is obtained 1 month after the procedure, DEB-TACE offers a more durable local tumor control compared to lipiodol-TACE. • In these patients, the longer duration of response after DEB-TACE translates into a lower number of re-interventions.
Interventional procedures for percutaneous tumor ablation have gained an increasingly important role in the treatment of liver malignancies. After interventional therapies, diagnostic imaging has the key role in determining if the treated lesion is completely ablated or contains areas of residual viable neoplastic tissue. This is particularly important since in case of incomplete necrosis of the lesion, treatment can be repeated, and tumor ablation can be further pursued. The evaluation of the therapeutic effect of the procedure leads to different problems according to the histotype of the malignancy. In the case of hepatocellular carcinoma, detection of residual viable tumor is facilitated by the typical hypervascular pattern of this neoplasm. Contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasonography can be used to monitor tumor response, and, in case of partial necrosis, to target the areas of residual viable tumor. With spiral computed tomography or dynamic magnetic resonance imaging, residual viable hepatocellular carcinoma tissue is reliably depicted as it stands out in the arterial phase images against the unenhanced areas of coagulation necrosis. In the case of hypovascular metastases, a confident diagnosis of successful ablation can be made when an area of thermal necrosis exceeding that of the original lesion is depicted. Peripheral inflammatory reaction following ablation procedures should not be misinterpreted as tumor progression.
To obtain long-term data on the use of everolimus in patients who underwent liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma, we conducted a retrospective, single-center analysis of adult recipients transplanted between 2013 and 2021. Patients on everolimus-incorporating immunosuppression were matched with those on tacrolimus using an inverse probability of treatment weighting methodology. Two propensity-matched groups of patients were thus compared: 233 (45.6%) receiving everolimus versus 278 (54.4%) on tacrolimus. At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 4.4 (3.8) years after transplantation, everolimus patients showed a reduced risk of recurrence versus tacrolimus (7.7% versus 16.9%; RR=0.45; P=0.002). At multivariable analysis, microvascular infiltration (HR=1.22; P<0.04) and a higher tumor grading (HR=1.27; P<0.04) were associated with higher recurrence rate while being within Milan criteria at transplant (HR=0.56; P<0.001), a successful pre-transplant downstaging (HR=0.63; P=0.01) and use of everolimus (HR=0.46; P<0.001) had a positive impact on the risk of post-transplant recurrence. EVR patients with earlier drug introduction (30 days; P<0.001), longer treatment duration (P<0.001), and higher drug exposure (5.9ng/mL; P<0.001) showed lower recurrence rates versus TAC. Based on our experience, everolimus provides a reduction of the relative risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence, especially for advanced-stage patients and those with earlier drug administration, higher drug exposure, and longer time on treatment. These data advocate for early everolimus introduction after liver transplantation to reduce the attrition rate consequent to chronic immunosuppression.
